Jump to content
IGNORED

Champions League

Super

By Super
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted

uefa cup is dieing on its arse to be fair,

It would make the FA/Carling Cup meaningful again in this country as the reward would be a champions league place and would mean more money for clubs,

as long as the places equal so say if we get the reported 7 places that would be 1st - 5th in the prem and a place for the league and FA cup,

Good idea imo,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loderingo

Loderingo

Posted
Posted

2 problems with this idea:

1) It would add a minimum of 2 new games to the schedules (new knockout stage) when the big clubs are already moaning about too many games.

2) It would make the group stage boring and predictable. At the moment you can have a group like Borussia , Real, Ajax and Man C and not be sure who will go through. With twice as many teams the big clubs will be able to coast through to the knockout stages.

Doubt it will happen as the big clubs won't want to share their money out further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glynriley

glynriley

Posted
Posted

The solution is simple - Champions League for champions only. Everyone else should go to the Europa League. Both competitions will then be valuable.

I dont know why they don't go back to the old system

Champions League (Champions only) - Play Tuesday nights

Uefa Cup (league positions) - Play Wednesday night

Cup Winners Cup - (BOTH domestic cups to add some value to them) - Play Thursday nights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lew-T

Lew-T

Posted
Posted

I dont know why they don't go back to the old system

Champions League (Champions only) - Play Tuesday nights

Uefa Cup (league positions) - Play Wednesday night

Cup Winners Cup - (BOTH domestic cups to add some value to them) - Play Thursday nights.

But there is too much money to be made in an expanded CL so they will never go back to this system... sigh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Portland Bill

Portland Bill

Posted
Posted

2 problems with this idea:

1) It would add a minimum of 2 new games to the schedules (new knockout stage) when the big clubs are already moaning about too many games.

2) It would make the group stage boring and predictable. At the moment you can have a group like Borussia , Real, Ajax and Man C and not be sure who will go through. With twice as many teams the big clubs will be able to coast through to the knockout stages.

Doubt it will happen as the big clubs won't want to share their money out further.

The reason that group is so tough is because those 4 teams were actually Champions of there respective leagues!

That's how it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted

2 problems with this idea:

1) It would add a minimum of 2 new games to the schedules (new knockout stage) when the big clubs are already moaning about too many games.

2) It would make the group stage boring and predictable. At the moment you can have a group like Borussia , Real, Ajax and Man C and not be sure who will go through. With twice as many teams the big clubs will be able to coast through to the knockout stages.

Doubt it will happen as the big clubs won't want to share their money out further.

I suspect that the 2 extra games at the knock out stage would generate huge amounts of money and probably more than 2 premier league games would generate so what's the betting that this acts as a catalyst for the big clubs to lobby for a reduction in the number of premier league clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eco

Eco

Posted
Posted

I suspect that the 2 extra games at the knock out stage would generate huge amounts of money and probably more than 2 premier league games would generate so what's the betting that this acts as a catalyst for the big clubs to lobby for a reduction in the number of premier league clubs?

In the original premier league blueprint that was meant to save the english game there were only 18 clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maltshoveller

Maltshoveller

Posted
Posted

In my opinion the champions league should be for the one team that's champions on each country, and play it in a a league format

Agree with the Champions only bit

But

Have it as a straight 2 leg ok without a seeded draw

So if Man Utd get Barca in round 1 tough luck

Doing this even if you get to the Final you only play 11 games

This will also stop managers of top clubs keeping on they play to many games!!! NOT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith_Lemon

Keith_Lemon

Posted
Posted

Scrap Johnstone Paint Trophy.

League Cup should be for all clubs bar PL.

FA Cup for everyone ofcourse

Scrap UEFA cup, absolutely pointless. Just another money maker

Champions League should be for 2 clubs imo. League Champions and country's FA cup winners etc.

Show less game on tele also to get the luxury of football going again, I believe it has killed international football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
22A

22A

Posted
Posted

64 teams? before the break up of Yugoslaia & the Soviet Union and before the likes of Faroe Islands, Andorra & Lichtenstein competed, there were 32 nations affilliated to UEFA. It now has 53 members.

Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy & England will all expect to have three or four teams playing in any competition so... massive disappointment for the major nations or will the minnows in UEFA be barred from a UEFA competition? No prizes for guessing the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeyb

joeyb

Posted
Posted

If it was only the champions of each league that would prevent many of worlds top players playing against eachother.

Agree with this. I think the Champions League system at the moment is very good as once it reaches the knockout stages with the majority of big teams left, nowhere else will you find more world class players competing against each other. The CL itself is perfect as it is IMO but it does affect the meaning of the Europa League to aspiring clubs in the 'big' leagues. I can't think of anyway that the Europa League could become more meaningfull to the likes of Spurs, Newcastle and even Stoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coxy27

Coxy27

Posted
Posted

Calling Borussia Dortmund just 'Borussia' irks me, might as well say the group was between Borussia, Greater Manchester, North Holland and Community of Madrid.

Now, onto the more relevant part of the post;

I like the current system, I actually watch the Europa League, and generally enjoy watching any football. The more the better for me, don't understand people who say there is too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jordan Tansley

Jordan Tansley

Posted
Posted

Calling Borussia Dortmund just 'Borussia' irks me, might as well say the group was between Borussia, Greater Manchester, North Holland and Community of Madrid.

Now, onto the more relevant part of the post;

I like the current system, I actually watch the Europa League, and generally enjoy watching any football. The more the better for me, don't understand people who say there is too much.

Would it? Seeing as Dortmund is the place? Surely it's the same as calling Man U 'United' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coxy27

Coxy27

Posted
Posted

Would it? Seeing as Dortmund is the place? Surely it's the same as calling Man U 'United' ?

Many of the German football club's names were designed to show solidarity to particular German Kingdoms/regions. Borussia, which is the Latin word for Preußen (or Prussia as you'll probably have heard of it) was adopted for that reason. The region no longer truly exists, but it's not a prefix/suffix like we have here. I was just being a pedant and therefore decided to call the other teams by their county/region.

My real point though, was that I like the current European football structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glynriley

glynriley

Posted
Posted

Surprised people still hold this nonsensical, romanticised 'Champions League for champions' notion.

I'd love nothing more than to see the wealth of the big sides spread around more fairly, but in reality nobody wants to watch Dudelange v FC Lusitanos or Vardar v FC Zestafoni on a regular basis.

The clue is in the name. If all Uefa want is a midweek league for the richest clubs in Europe , just call it The European League and have done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
22A

22A

Posted
Posted

The Champions League came about because UEFA was weak.

Certain "big" clubs demanded the right to play in the European Cup every season, even if they hadn't won their own league, due to their history. UEFA said no, so the big clubs of Europe threatened to break awayand form their own League.

UEFA could/should have replied Do so, but anyone playing for you will be banned from playing for any other club outside of your group of 20.

Instead UEFA backed down and produced the Champions League. Then to placate the bigger clubs still, teams going out of the CL at a certain stage, then went into round 3 of the lesser competition.

As I said in my earlier post there are 64 places up for grabs and 53 member nations in UEFA. Today's paper suggested England may have as many as seven teams in the new CL. Clubs are allegedly against it as that would dilute the competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...